Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-02-25

ing argument at O'Clock tonight. After
producing rebuttlng authority to show
that Major Wslton's position relative to
the legal rights Of the impeachment was
wrong, ne said that while the cOnStitu
ton OF the United States prescribed
what should constitute the high
crimes and misdemeanors punishable
by impeachment, our constitution
laid down no grounds Of impeachments.
In other words no crimes were named as
constituting the offense and we We're not
limited to particular statutory Cffenses
He then said that he would insist on the
committee taking CogniZance OF the is
sues charged against Judge Willis. He
claimed t at district Judge cou d be in
diCted and punished for aviolatiOD on any
statutsry offense like any other citizen,
but that Impeachment lies for those high
crimes that cannot be committed by 6
private citizen. II was the abuse of his
discretionary powers that called for the
high powers vested in the court Of i'm
parchment. He read from Mr.. Story in
support OF LIS position where il was held
that political crimes and kindred OffenSeS
that could not be defined under the statu-
tory law were made the subject of
impeachment. The Judicial discretion
cannot be Gshned, ara there is hardly any
limit to the wrong that 8 judge nigh GO
under cover OF the power thus delegated
10 him. Answering the position taken By
defendants counsel, that an officer could
not be impeaChed, after MS reelection to
the office, for offenses committed uuder g
previous term, he again read from Mr.
Story and other authorities that an Off
Ger could be impeached after his term for
crimes committed while holding the Of
flee. Referring to the Woodmsn bonus,
he read the statute defining the duties Of
district attorneys, where he is expressly
prohib ted from taking any pay, gift or
emolument for his services, eth
er before or after prosecuting
cases, or doing any act required Of
him under the law. He particularly
called attention to Judge Willis testi-
moNy, where he said that the would have
let Nelson's verdict stand if it had been
guilty, though he was indicted and tried
without his knowledge or consent.
In this connection he asked TIE
the fact that Nelson was indicted
when it was the sworn duty Of the grand
jury, Judge and Sheriff to keep it secret
uuIIl Hs udu Dt;Su Az GStcui anu WY SUN
haste" showing by the record that Nelson
was indicted and tried and acquitted on
the same day, January Il, 1856.
He then showed authority that
the grand Jury was portion
of the court, and directly under his con-
troll, and the power was delegated to him
to see that they found legal verdicts. He
then arraigned Judge Willis and District
Attorney Woodman in an eloquent and
pointed argument, claiming that they
were making q farce of justice, and
appealed to the committee to know if
they should go unpublished.
After generating Hon. James N.
Browning anG Senator Houston, he
wound up his argument by scsth;ng de-
nouncement of Judge Willis as & man
that shou no longer disgrace the judi
cial ermine of Texas; that
the committee might refuse to
prefer charges against him;
that the Legislature might refuse to IN
peach him, but so long as he had control
of the Attorney Generals Office he would
prosecute corruption ia office, if it took
every dollar in the Treasury department
Of the state.